User talk:Vicki Virago

WP:EL
Hi, I think you may want to read WP:EL and WP:SPAM for the Wikipedia policies on external links. Thanks. JoshuaZ 14:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see the "Links normally to be avoided" under WP:EL. Thanks. JoshuaZ 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why have you shown me these particuarly?

VV


 * Because h2h2 runs unfortunately afoul of multiple points in "Links normally to be avoided" including most seriously "In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose." JoshuaZ 14:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK...hang on a mo. Let me get this right.

We link to your site, but we're not allowed to link back to our own site?

You say that we run afoul of a site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here....

Let me clarify a small point if I may. h2g2 has to be factually correct. No-one is allowed to put any old thing down. Our entries are completely different to yours, else all we would end up doing is duplicating your work. In any event, most of our entries are in fact older than yours, so you are duplicating our entries.

I don't mean to get huffed up about anything, but I do disagree with what you're saying here.


 * Hi. I sympathise with your point of view - I think what JoshuaZ was complaining about was that the wikipedia policy is that external sites like h2g2 should not be linked to - rather the material (if there is any) which is unique to h2g2 should be used to make the wikipedia entry better. You can, of course, try to get the policy changed, but while it is policy you are likely to find other editors (not just admins) reverting such links.


 * NB. This is not to say anyone thinks h2g2 isn't accurate etc, its just not really a primary source. Don't be discouraged and do continue to boldly edit! Francis Davey 15:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem adding h2g2 links. For the record I'm an h2g2 researcher as well as a Wikipedian. WP:EL does state that "In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.". But this pretty much invalidates any external links at all. Plus h2g2 Guide Entries may have a lot of extra information not yet included in the wiki article, and not likely to be included in the near future. And h2g2 does offer something unique, a lot of entries have an element of humour, while still being factually correct. Stu  ’Bout ye!  15:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vicki! I think the first chap (to put a charitable interpretation on his actions) was just saying not to add h2g2 links indiscriminately. We want them in to boost h2g2 (as we were discussing on the Dear Jimster conversation), but we have to look at this from these people's perspective: Does the link actually add value to the Wikipedia article? Most do, I think. A h2g2 EG Entry is factually accurate and well written (or, at least, it should be: if it isn't we have EF and UF to deal with it). Most of the time, a hootoo EG link will enhance any article. Compare what Wilma said:


 * I find that whenever I offer an EG link to outsiders I get a comment about how clever it is or how insightful or somtehing. I never got those comments about Wiki.


 * (post 83.)

TRiG 16:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)